Saturday, 28 January 2017

Recently Mr. Mark Richardson and myself caught up with a young man from Perth and we had a good chat about Traditionalism, life and what each group got up too. It was really good to meet up and to find out that there is now a Traditionalist group in Perth, Western Australia. At this moment there are three Traditionalist groups that I know of in Australia, one in Melbourne, Sydney and now Perth!

Thursday, 26 January 2017

Every year we get the same rubbish, each and every year. Today is Australia Day, the day Australians celebrate their nation, but each and every year without fail we are attacked.

The Aboriginal lobby and the Left have taken to calling our national day Invasion Day. And today in Sydney there has been violence as the Left, always the Left decide to protest our national Day. They say that the 26th January is provocative and that the date needs to be changed, but we all know the truth, the problem isn't the date, the problem is that we dare to be proud of our country.

Last night driving home I saw this giant billboard on Bell Street in Preston, ohhh yes nothing says Australia Day like Muslims. And like always who put this up, that's right White traitors, people who cannot wait for their own people to be destroyed. The poster was originally put up on the other side of Melbourne in Dandenong, but it was pulled down because people complained, then they decided to put more up. Ohhh how much they love us, love to denigrate, attack and deny we have a right to our own country that is.

For the past decade there have been a series of lamb ads for Australia Day, they have become quite popular. Here is the original lamb ad, now compare it to the current years ad, 2017. The first is funny and patriotic, the second starts funny but then takes a very serious drive into right on Leftism territory. It doesn't even mention Australia Day, the original reason for the lamb ad campaign, and while it does show numerous national flags the one missing is the Australian flag.

And today of course is the day every level of Government in Australia and the media likes to rub our faces into the truth of their betrayal with citizenship ceremony's. Yes nothing quite says Australia like giving our country away to foreigners and pretending their Australians.

The one bright side this year has been the winner of the Australian of the year award who seems to be a real scientist who might even be worthy of the honour, instead of the politically correct oxygen thieves we have had in recent times. The award has been so polluted that I cannot quite believe it and I'm waiting for the other foot to fall.

Australia Day is further proof that each time we compromise to achieve peace we lose, we don't get peace and instead they always want us to compromise more. We need to stop compromising and we need to stop thinking that they might have a point. Nothing we surrender will ever be enough for them, it's time we start giving them what they deserve, nothing!

Wednesday, 25 January 2017

The short answer to that is yes and no. Which I accept is not very useful so lets look in further detail at each in turn.

For far too long Conservatives have been too nice, much nicer than the Left and it has gotten us nowhere. We lost focus, we became timid, we began in many cases to use the language of the Left. My favourite example comes from the United States where you hear Conservatives (and Cuckservatives) say "Democrats are the real racists!". The problem with this is that you have given the initiative to the Left, you have also accepted that the way that they view the world is the correct one. The Alt-Right has quite correctly rejected being nice, it does what the Left does, it fights, it argues, it screams and it is often cruel and merciless. It accepts something that the Left has believed in for more than a century. We are not two sides of a debate, we are enemies and we are at war.

So yes we can be loud, we can fight, we can argue, we can be cruel and merciless, just like the Left is. Conservatives once thought that as we want a civilized society we must be civilized. But the Left does not believe in a civilized society. We cannot afford to lose to them, but in the main we are losing to them. We need to fight to win, because only our victory will maintain civilization.

But the answer is also no, we cannot use the tactics of the Left. And the reason we cannot use their tactics against them is because they require, lies, they require deception and self-deception, they require us to become what we reject. I think it is best to provide an example of what I mean. Imagine a basketball club, that club has a committee and a Leftist joins that committee. They tell people that they want to get onto the committee because they want to give something back to the club, they tell people that they want a fairer selection process. It sounds nice but what does a "fairer selection process" mean? It means not selecting the team based on who are the best players but on some other criteria. Not enough short players get selected, positions should be rotated so each player gets a chance to find out what their good at, they should be more inclusive and include people who normally wouldn't play the game. But in all of this the good of the club or the team is unimportant, because they are both tools to be manipulated to achieve others aims.

People often ask why don't we do what they do? Why don't we lie and deceive? Because for most of us we aren't capable of it. I'm not saying we are to good to lie or to deceive, what I am saying is we regard those things as bad but the Left does not. For the Left that is their standard operating procedure, but it isn't ours. We are too blunt, we say what we think, we are very bad at being deceitful, we are also individuals not collectivists. We try to do our own thinking, we don't fall into line when policy changes as the Left does.

That is why we have been so good at memes and laughing at the Left and their antics. We are not tied to one way of thinking, we think for ourselves. But it also means we are not good at collective action like the Left is, no million man or women marches for us. The Left thinks that they are the rebels, but actually we are better at guerrilla warfare than they are. Our biggest problem is that we need to become as organised as they are.

I am so glad that we have stopped being nice. Nothing is beneath them, they call people Nazi's because they believe in the exact same things that Winston Churchill did. For far too long we thought of them as honourable, but they have no honour.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?Sex not Gender

Saturday, 21 January 2017

Not even a month since I asked when would Melbourne get it's Berlin moment, it's here. A terrorist has killed 4 people by driving into them as they walked down Bourke Street Mall in the Melbourne CBD. It is still unclear if he is a Muslim or not at this stage. Those killed include a man and a women both in their thirties and a 10 year old boy. Here is a MSM story on the attack with a timeline, Melbourne CBD Rampage.

Just like in the bombing of the Australian Christian Lobby in Canberra last month, the Police have once again told us this has nothing to do with terrorism. The story this far is that he is a violent man who is known to police, that he has already been charged with domestic violence offences, that he is a drug user and has mental illness. It is also believed that he stabbed his brother around 6am and that the police have been actively looking to arrest him since at least 11:30am, But he was not arrested because the three times they tried he got away!

At 1:30pm he started driving in circles at one of the busiest intersections in Melbourne, the corner of Flinders Street and Swanston Street. Two men tried to stop him by bashing in his window, but unfortunately failed, it is not known if these men were police or civilians. He then drove down Swanston Street before driving into the Bourke Street Mall where he killed three and injured around 20, including children. He then seriously injured a toddler when he continued down Bourke Street, hitting a women pushing a pram. Only then was he shot, in the arm, by police and stopped.

It is something that once upon a time would have been unthinkable, that something like that could happen, let alone in Melbourne. But now it is just another event, something those who's only job is to protect us say is something we all just have to get used too. They will say they tried everything to stop this, but this is entirely due to their policies. Everything is getting worse and Liberalism is making it worse.

Update: 25/1/2017
At this time 5 people have died due to this attack, 2 of them children.

Friday, 20 January 2017

Ever since I have been old enough to follow politics I have in relation to the US Presidential election that this election, whichever year it happened to be, was the most important. This time I think it's true, Mr. Trump was a breathe of fresh air in a very muggy and musty environment.

Of the Democratic candidates, Mr. Sanders was an old unreconstructed Socialist and Mrs. Clinton was from the "what have you done for me lately" school of politics. Of the two I liked Mr. Sanders better, at least he told us all what he really believed, Socialism. On the Republican side there were 16 candidates for President, a number that still amazes me. I honestly think that if there have been fewer Mr. Trump would have had a much harder time of it.

Fortunately the man who became President was the best we have seen for quite some time. He has said good things about immigration and trade and most of us on the broad Right are hoping for good things to happen. For immigration to be restricted, for Free-Trade to get a big kick in the pants. We want America to be Great Again, even those of us who aren't American, because we want the same for our countries.

But what happens if those great things don't happen? What happens if Trump dies? Or is murdered? What happens if the Left and the Never-Trumpers get their way? What if President Trump is a huge disappointment?

Then everything ramps up to the next level, this is the last chance before everything turns bad. Everywhere in the West things are becoming polarized, every country is dividing into two, a Left country and a Right country. President Lincoln said a House divided against itself cannot stand, but the Bible says it better "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand" (Mark 3:25)

Right now people on the Right are optimistic about President Trump and they should be, he's the best thing going at the moment. But that optimism is not unlimited and there are a few things that are a bare minimum. Illegal immigration must be cracked down on hard, the wall must be built and the American economy must start looking after the interests of the average American. We would like more but that is the bare minimum and if for any reason those things fail to happen them everything takes a turn for the worse.

Those on the Left and the Never-Trumpers think that this an aberration and that things will get back to normal with the next President. But things have gone too far for that. Most people have realised that Liberalism has lied, it promised things that simply have not happened. Many gave it the benefit of the doubt and now no doubt remains, they were tricked and they are as mad as hell about it. For many younger people they can see the difference between the way we are told the world works and the way it really does.

Either things get better or else things will get worse, but things will not stay the same, there is a lot riding on President Trump.

Sunday, 15 January 2017

Now most of you have never heard of The Salisbury Review, but early in 2016 I decided to get a yearly subscription. So what is The Salisbury Review? It's subtitle is "The quarterly magazine of conservative thought" and its a magazine that comes out of Britain. I have known of the magazine for a few years but I had never seen a copy and I wanted to find out if it was any good.

I also decided I would do a review after I had seen all four issues and that time is now. I was very impressed with how quickly the magazine arrived in Australia from Britain, it was obvious that they don't mess around with their orders. When it arrived it was a magazine as advertised, not a journal just a normal looking magazine. So far so good. But then I opened it up and started to read, the first thing was the editorial and it was awful. It started off by saying that Britain needed foreign workers, particularly the Poles as the English working class were terrible. I was both shocked and outraged. A Conservative magazine that wasn't Patriotic is worthless.

A little while later I had dinner with Mr. Mark Richardson of Oz Conservative fame and I told him I had subscribed to the magazine. He asked me what I thought of it, instead of doing that I handed the magazine to him and told him to read the editorial. Now I must explain that in manner he is very much a Gentlemen, doesn't swear, speaks very evenhandedly, doesn't like to raise his voice. But as he started to read this I thought he had developed Tourette's Syndrome, the editorial was that bad.

So how was the rest of the magazine, a lot better than the editorial but nothing great. It was not really concerned with "conservative thought", but with British Conservative thought, now I don't object to that but it isn't what the magazine highlights. I think it should highlight that it is about British Conservative thought. An interesting but I found annoying stylistic feature is their page layout, hardly any of the articles start at the top of the page. I assume that is because there are no advertisements at all, not a single one. I'm not sure if that is policy or not, it shows how Right-Liberal our society is that it seems so strange that a magazine doesn't have any ad's.

There are some good writers and not all of them are well known authors either such as Theodore Dalrymple, who has a truly beautiful sentence regarding Hillary Clinton in the Winter 2016 issue "Her public affability, when she displays it, has the authentic ring of phoniness.".

But in others I find a very Liberal sentiment and I must admit I resent paying a magazine of "conservative thought" money to read a Liberals opinions. I also purchase an Australian political magazine called Quadrant and they have any number of Liberal opinions, so why is it alright for Quadrant but not for The Salisbury Review? Because Quadrant doesn't label itself as being "conservative thought".

From reading what I have written you may think I hate The Salisbury Review, but I just wish it was better. I have given serious thought into whether I will resubscribe or not and I have decided that I will. It is very hard to get a magazine like this off the ground and they have done that and they have kept it going for 30 years, I admire that. I want to support that and encourage more Conservatism and more Conservative thought, although I must also say that my support is not unlimited.

Why is it called The Salisbury Review?

It's named after Lord Salisbury who was the last Conservative Prime Minister of Britain to actually be Conservative, he left office in 1902.

Friday, 13 January 2017

December was a good month, my fourth best, 3,550, only 94 less than the month before. January has been slow, not disastrous, only slow although I do hope it picks up.

I apologise for being two days last with my update, I have no real excuse.

My best day was the 18th December when I had 298 visitors, I had two worst days, the 29th December and the 8th January when I had only 39 visitors each day. While I have had Russians and Poles come onto the site in small numbers, most of my Russian and Polish visitors came in a big rush over a few days.

I have been a bit disappointed that I have no received any emails or comments regarding divorce in Europe. I really have no idea what the situation is which I find annoying, so if any of you do know please let me know.

While most months are from the 11th of each month to the 11th of the next month, the last month is from the 13th of December to the 13th of January.

December-January

Entry

Pageviews

United States

993

Australia

559

Russia

557

Poland

228

United Kingdom

66

China

65

Germany

58

France

54

Belgium

30

Canada

27

November-December

November-December

Entry

Pageviews

United States

1088

Australia

713

Russia

312

United Kingdom

132

Canada

97

Netherlands

54

Germany

51

France

43

Ireland

41

India

33

Russia is up, as are Germany and France by small numbers.

The United States and Australia are both down, the United Kingdom has halved and Canada is down even further.

Saturday, 7 January 2017

Over at Adventures In Keeping House a few days ago, Sanne put up a post Men vs Women where the original post got diverted in the comments, as often happens on the internet. It became a discussion on the Mens Rights Movement and sites like Return of Kings. Then a commenter calling himself "theexpertdeveloper" wrote this:

"Read some of the stories on the Community of the Wrongly Accused web site and weep. Too many men have had their lives ruined by divorce-rape. They have lost access to their children, the homes, cars and incomes were taken away. Many men now live in flop houses with winos after a particularily nasty divorce settlement."

Sanne replied:

"The expert I live in Europe and I have yet to meet one man ruined by "divorce rape". In fact, they all seem to do relatively well and quickly embark upon new relationships. It can be different in America, I won't argue that point since I don't live there."

When I read that I was shocked, was divorce in Europe really so clean and clinical? Was it really so very different to divorce in the English speaking world?

I would really love to hear from European men, it doesn't matter what country your from, regarding your experience of divorce.

In the English speaking world law is adversarial, with lawyers appearing for both sides before a judge and arguing or presenting their clients case. In Family law there are no juries unlike in other law courts.

I would like to tell you about divorce in Australia, while I have never been married I do however have some stories to tell all of which happened to men I personally know.

If a women wants to keep the house all she has to do is accuse the man of domestic violence, it doesn't matter if it's true or not. Because the Police will remove him from the premises straight away. He will be served with a restraining order which forbids him going near the women, any children, the house and all of his belongings. She is now in physical possession of the house and he must find new accommodation, all of which will work in her favour when it all goes to court.

A former boss of mine wasn't even married but he was living with the women in question. He purchased a block of vacant land with the idea of building on it and selling the built property. He was required to upkeep the block and while that wasn't expensive it was time consuming. The women decided to leave him, but it doesn't end there. She engaged a lawyer to take him to court, she wanted half of the property. Now she had never put any money into the block and she very rarely went to the block, but when it went to court she was awarded half of the block and he had to sell it and hand over half of the money.

In a custody dispute the ex-wife accuses the ex-husband of sexually abusing their daughter. He was never charged let alone convicted because it was rubbish. But it did destroy whatever civility had existed before that point, so now the ex-wife could tell the court how aggressive and angry he was at her and that it would be too dangerous for their daughter to be in his custody. It worked, she got sole custody.

I know a women who worked as a Police officer and at one point she worked in a sex crimes unit. She told me that most of her work was investigating Fathers accused of sexually abusing their children by, yes you guessed it their ex-wives. She said to me that nearly all of it was wrong and that there was rarely anything criminal let alone any sex crimes. It was all very demoralizing for her, as like many people who go into that line of work she wanted to help people and instead, she was interviewing what seemed like an endless line of men who had been wrongly accused. Why were all these men being accused? It was all about custody battles, not just the law but a tactic designed to demoralise the men so they give up fighting in the courts.

I know another man who's wife left him for another man, she took their two children and moved far away so it was physically hard for him to see his children. She also tried to demoralize him but this time it was a little different. He mentioned in passing that he had visited a lake by himself. An anonymous caller contacted Social Services and told them that he had visited this lake, that he had visitation rights this weekend and that they feared that he might harm his children, in other words that he might murder his children in the lake. He received a visit from the Police and he had to go to court to prove that he was not a danger to his own children. The court said, he was never charged let along convicted, but the court still said he had to be supervised when he saw his children just to be certain. After six months Social Services said that they were no longer interested in his case as everything seemed alright. Thats a pretty high price to pay for mentioning that you'd visited a local beauty spot.

So when I hear that divorce in Europe is different I am extremely suspicious. Are there no vindictive women in Europe? Are there no biased Judges? Does Feminism have no sway in Europe courts? Are property rights so finely balanced that no man has to fear? Is every ex-wife happy to share custody?

As I said earlier I would love for European men to tell me what their experience of divorce was like. Is it so very different?

Sunday, 1 January 2017

As you surf the internet and look at Conservative or Alt-Right sites you will come across something called the Frankfurt School. It is something you will soon learn is infamous in Conservative and Alt-Right for the destruction it has caused across the West. So what is the Frankfort School?

In 1923 at the University of Frankfort in Germany the Institute for Social Research was formed, although it mostly known as the Frankfort School. It was set up by a private fund to study Marxism and to make such research more respectable within Universities. It's big idea was called Critical Theory, which basically said that there is much to criticize in society and here was a theory for doing so. Now most of the people who wrote for the Institute for Social Research were Communists and most them were Jews, although they were not the only writers they were the majority. So as the Nazi's became more powerful within Germany the Institute decided to put in place a plan to move both the school and it's money if the Nazi's should come to power.

In 1933 they did come to power and the Institute moved first to Geneva in Switzerland and then in 1934 to New York where they remained until moving back to Germany in 1951. Ironically going into exile was the making of the school, here were real life European intellectuals who had had to flee the Nazi's because of their political, philosophical and religious beliefs. It gave them a sense of glamour, it also meant that they began publishing in English which increased their readership and influence greatly.

The main criticism of the Frankfort School is that it used this influence to spread Communist ideas and to undermine the West. That much of the upheaval of the 1960's was because the Left began to follow the ideas of the Frankfort School. While it is true that their ideas were hostile to the West and that they did serve to influence the New Left of the 1960's it has a major problem. The upheaval of the 1960's didn't have there origin in the 1960's. The 1960's were simply the time when all of the festering sores that covered Liberalism could no longer be covered up.

The truth is that the 1960's were a Liberal revolution against itself. Sure it had Communist and other influences without any question. But the biggest problem was Liberalism and it's internal contradictions. Everything political and social that came to symbolize the 1960's existed 50 or even a 100 years before that time. Everything that has come after is the logical extension of Liberalism, not of Communism.

Liberalism has since the 1950's accepted the Communist idea of Class Warfare and the Frankfort School is one of many to influence that outcome. I am not saying that it had no influence at all, or that it did not have bad influences, what I am saying is that it wrong to think that the world we live in today can be laid at the feet of the Frankfort School, nothing is quite that simple. To understand our modern world we must study Liberalism and it's history because Liberalism is the problem.